On 2007/05/01 17:02, Luca Corti wrote: > Stuart Henderson wrote: > >It may be a hack, but 'virtual routing' is becoming more common as > >people need to connect networks on the same address range (e.g. with > >company mergers, or VPNs involving multiple organisations, where it > >would be "challenging" to renumber everything). Google: vrf nat. > > In this case you'd need VRF/MPLS support on OpenBSD, which is not there > (and not planned it seems). IIRC you can now have multiple routing > tables but cannot assign overlapping IP addresses to multiple interfaces > by assigning them to different VRFs.
you can *assign* them but I'm not sure whether or not you can get the rest of the system to work sensibly; that's why I'm not sure about doing this with rtable. reply-to is more likely to be successful since the return route information is attached to the PF state. it's certainly worth a try. sometimes it is just plain not possible to get other people to change their config and it's nice to have ways to deal with it.
